「draft」の検索結果

Prepare a lawyer for an adversarial proceeding the way Neal Katyal's "Harvey" prepared him for the SCOTUS tariffs argument: profile the tribunal from their prior opinions and questions, predict the specific questions you will face, map narrow "escape routes" each judge can walk through without abandoning prior commitments, and spar adversarially until only the strongest answers survive. The model is the sparring partner. The human still wins the case. Use when: preparing for oral argument, appellate argument, motion hearing, evidentiary hearing, deposition (taking or defending), arbitration, mediation, or any proceeding where a known decision-maker will fire questions at you in real time. Also useful for stress-testing a brief before filing. Proactively suggest when: the user mentions an upcoming hearing/argument with named judges or arbitrators, drafts a brief and wants it pressure-tested, asks "what will Justice X / Judge Y ask me," or talks about preparing for a specific bench.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Firm-matter matching, matter instruction drafting, firm onboarding checklist, and instruction audit for in-house legal ops teams. Match a new matter to the right panel firm by practice area, jurisdiction, complexity, and cost tier. Produce a structured matter instruction with scope, timeline, budget, staffing, and reporting requirements. Generate an onboarding checklist covering conflict clearance, engagement letter, OCG acknowledgment, e-billing setup, and platform access. Audit an existing instruction for completeness and produce a remediation note. Trigger on: 'which firm should handle this', 'instruct the firm', 'write the instruction', 'matter instruction template', 'onboard the firm', 'set up the matter', 'conflict check', 'e-billing setup', 'is our instruction complete', 'review our instruction', 'instruction gap', 'allocate this matter'.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Rigorous multi-pass editor for law review articles, student notes, seminar papers and other legal scholarship. Runs six specialized passes — structure, substantive critique, Bluebook citations, grammar and clarity, fact-checking against sources, and a synthesizing memo — and delivers an editorial memo with issues prioritized as critical, substantial or minor and keyed to specific footnotes and paragraphs. Handles articles of any length, including 50,000-word pieces, by chunking on section boundaries. Reads .docx directly. Use when editing, critiquing, workshopping or pre-submission-reviewing academic legal writing. Triggers on "edit my article," "review this draft," "critique my note," "check my Bluebook citations," "is my argument sound," "read my law review piece," "workshop this paper," "pre-submission review." Chunking needs Python 3; fact-checking needs web search; both degrade gracefully without.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turns a legal question, a set of draft questions, or source material such as a statute, jury instruction, rubric, contract checklist, or coding manual into a battery of narrow questions that TypeSafe's Jev, a fast classifier that returns probabilities rather than prose, can answer reliably across many documents. The skill breaks conclusions such as negligence, felony murder, or standing into element-level questions, writes the governing rule into each question, and delivers the questions alone, in Jev's request format or in plain English. Built for legal work that asks the same questions of many texts: coding statutes across jurisdictions, coding opinions or case files for empirical research, checking contracts against a review checklist, screening intake narratives, and grading student work against a rubric. Use when asked to write Jev questions, build a classifier for legal documents, or turn a legal test into yes-or-no questions. Running the questions requires Jev access; writing them does not.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Audits a legal document against legal design principles. Scores the document on six pillars: language patterns (bureaucratese, archaisms, passive voice, nominalization), readability (Flesch Reading Ease and language-specific equivalents), structure and navigation, hidden conditions (material obligations buried away from their headings), statutory duplication (restating the law instead of citing it), and visual hierarchy where layout is available. Assessment-only; does not rewrite the document. Works on English, French, and German documents, inferring the applicable jurisdiction from the document's language and textual signals: governing-law clause, statute citations, party addresses. Use when a user shares a legal document (contract, NDA, T&C, privacy policy, internal policy) asking how good the drafting is from a legal design perspective, whether it is readable, whether it contains buried clauses or restates the law, or how it scores on Flesch / LIX / Amstad / Kandel-Moles readability metrics.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Routes any legal task to the right LLM, like OpenRouter but for legal work and grounded in benchmarks instead of brand loyalty. Built from mid-2026 legal evals (legalbenchmarks.ai, Vals AI × Stanford LegalBench across 124 models, Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark, the Atticus Project's CUAD/MAUD/ACORD) plus translation evidence (WMT25, SwiLTra-Bench, ArabLegalEval). Covers five verticals: contract drafting, info extraction, legal research, contract review, and legal translation (including Arabic/MENA). Each asks up to four questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then returns a primary model, a fallback, what to avoid, and what a human must verify. Core principle: capability is not controllability, so every route ends with a verification step. Not legal advice; a lawyer owns the output.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Expert LGPD compliance advisor for Brazil's Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (Law 13,709/2018). Use this skill whenever a user asks about LGPD, Brazilian data protection, ANPD, personal data processing in Brazil, data subject rights under Brazilian law, legal bases for processing, sensitive data handling, DPO appointment in Brazil, data breach notification to ANPD, LGPD penalties (fines up to 2% of revenue / R$50M), international data transfers from Brazil, Brazil-EU mutual adequacy (January 2026 — SCCs/BCRs no longer needed for Brazil-EU transfers), LGPD gap assessments, privacy policy drafting for Brazilian operations, DPIA under LGPD, consent management, or comparing LGPD with GDPR. Trigger for any Brazil privacy or data protection question even if LGPD is not named explicitly.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Restructure any rough build, research, or legal-drafting request into an IRAC-shaped prompt — Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion — optimized for a frontier model. It's the bar-exam framework, repurposed as prompt engineering. The skill leads with the issue and ends with the conclusion (where models weight attention most), forces you to name your constraints and non-goals, and specifies what "good" looks like before a single token is generated. Use it before any non-trivial build, or whenever a vague ask deserves a precise brief.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Draft or review a DPDPA-compliant consent notice under India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and DPDPA Rules, 2025. Provide basic details about your business and this skill handles the rest - building a notice tailored to your operations, with all required sections, granular consent boxes, and internal notes for your team. If you have an existing notice or privacy policy that needs to comply with DPDPA, this skill revises it too, flagging key gaps and changes made.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Research, drafting, and analysis involving the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute system). Enforces a verification-first methodology — every case-law, decision, filing, warrant, and statement citation is verified against an authoritative primary source (icc-cpi.int, legal-tools.org) in the current conversation before it appears in an output. Foundational texts (Rome Statute, Elements of Crimes, RPE, Regulations of the Court) may be cited from project knowledge when present. Use whenever the user is working with ICC case law, OTP statements, ASP documents, or ICC procedure.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Invoice review, non-compliance flagging, rejection communication, billing trend analysis, and conversation preparation for in-house legal ops teams managing outside counsel. Review invoices against billing guidelines; flag block billing, prohibited fees, rate violations, staffing violations, late submission. Produce line-item review report and approval note. Draft rejection letter to outside counsel. Build invoice review checklist. Analyse billing trends across multiple invoices and produce a structured conversation guide for the relationship review. Identify systemic patterns and produce formal non-compliance notice. Trigger on: 'review this invoice', 'flag billing issues', 'check invoice against guidelines', 'write the rejection letter', 'build an invoice checklist', 'block billing', 'UTBMS', 'billing non-compliance', 'analyse our invoices', 'billing trends', 'prep for the billing conversation', 'relationship review', 'the firm keeps doing this', 'escalate'.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

EU Digital Regulation Legal Analysis Forge — generates a tailored expert prompt for structured legal analysis of an EU digital-regulation document, optionally executes it in-session, and always produces a plain-English explainer alongside the formal output. Handles Regulations, Directives, Commission Guidelines, EDPB Opinions, CJEU and AG judgments, national DPA decisions, codes of conduct, and draft consultations across the EU digital stack.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use this skill when asked to review, analyze, or draft a contract governed by Icelandic law. Triggers on requests involving Icelandic commercial agreements, consumer contracts, sales agreements, service contracts, or any contract where Icelandic mandatory rules may apply.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Produces properly-formatted legal documents in Word (.docx). The user provides the substantive content (instructions, attached files, project knowledge); the skill handles document architecture and formatting. * No precedent or template required * Seven document families: agreements, corporate documents, litigation, memos, employment, policies, correspondence * Jurisdiction-agnostic — works across any legal system the user specifies * Multi-Chain numbering, defined-terms convention, structured recitals, atomic signature blocks * Also reformats existing .docx to a consistent house style * Works in Claude.ai, Cowork, and Claude for Word

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Mandatory external verification workflow for ALL non-trivial factual claims before presenting them as true. This skill MUST be used whenever Claude is asked to research any topic, answer factual questions, provide current information, draft documents containing factual claims, give legal advice or cite legal authority, discuss current events or public figures, provide technical or scientific information, state statistics or data points, or answer ANY question where the answer could have changed over time. Also trigger when the user asks Claude to 'check', 'verify', 'confirm', 'research', 'look up', or 'find out' anything, or when the user needs information that requires freshness, precision, or source accuracy. This skill overrides any default tendency to answer from memory. If a task involves stating facts, citing sources, or providing current information — use this skill.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Assess whether a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) is required under Article 27 EU AI Act, and structure or draft that assessment for a specific high-risk AI deployment. Covers deployer scope gating (public bodies and private entities providing public services), affected group mapping, Charter rights analysis, proportionality, safeguards evaluation, residual risk, DPIA/FRIA cross-referencing under the amended Article 27(4), the unconditional notification duty under Article 27(3), and DACH-specific considerations. Use when asked about FRIA obligations, Article 27 scope, fundamental rights and AI, or deployer assessment duties.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Assesses which of the Art. 50(1)-(5) transparency obligations of the EU AI Act apply to a given AI system's provider or deployer, grounded in the final Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content (June 2026) and the Commission's draft Art. 50 Guidelines. Covers AI-chatbot disclosure, deepfake and synthetic-content marking/watermarking, emotion-recognition and biometric-categorisation notices, the machine-readable marking duty, the obviousness exceptions, and the implementation timeline. Outputs a formal mini-report plus a per-obligation compliance checklist with gap flags. For breadth-first tier triage use the EU AI Act System Classifier; for raw Art. 50 text and Q&A use the EU AI Act Knowledge Base; for the full role x tier matrix use the EU AI Act Obligations Mapper.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

EU Data Act (Regulation (EU) 2023/2854) skill for lawyers. Use when the user asks about Data Act classification, drafting, lookup, analysis, or audit. Triggers include "Data Act", "Regulation 2023/2854", "connected product", "related service", "data processing service", "DPS switching", "Article 3(2) pre-contract", "Article 25 contract", "trade-secret handbrake", "international government access", "Chapter VI cloud switching", "Article 50 timeline", "FAQ Q22a", "data holder", "exportable data", "functional equivalence", "Art. 4(10) competing product", and similar EU Data Act phrases. The skill produces lawyer-style Word output and cites verbatim from bundled regulation and FAQ source texts.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Performs structured compliance review, clause redlining, and drafting suggestions for legal documents (privacy policies, data processing agreements, vendor and SaaS contracts) against India's DPDPA 2023 and the EU GDPR. Flags clauses as compliant, at-risk, or non-compliant with reasoning, and proposes ready-to-use model replacement language.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Expert HIPAA compliance assistant for healthcare and software contexts. Use this skill whenever the user mentions HIPAA, PHI (Protected Health Information), ePHI, covered entities, business associates, healthcare data privacy, medical records, health information security, BAA (Business Associate Agreements), or any compliance review involving patient data. Also trigger for requests to draft privacy notices, HIPAA policies, consent forms, security risk assessments, or breach notification letters. Use for developers building healthcare software who need technical safeguard guidance (encryption, access controls, audit logs), compliance officers reviewing documents or procedures, and anyone asking "is this HIPAA compliant?" or "what does HIPAA require for X?". When in doubt about whether a healthcare or data privacy question falls under this skill — use it.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

EU AI Act Knowledge Engine — authoritative regulatory Q&A grounded in 70 official EU source documents (including the 2026 Commission draft guidelines on Art. 6 high-risk classification — general principles, Annex I, Annex III). Answers any question about the AI Act with article-level citations from the full regulation text, Commission guidelines, EDPB/EDPS opinions, codes of practice, harmonised standards, FRIA guides, incident templates, and sector-specific guidance. This skill should be used when the user asks about the "EU AI Act", "AI Act regulation", "Regulation 2024/1689", "KI-Verordnung", asks to "explain an AI Act article", "what does Article X say", "AI Act requirements", "AI Act penalties", "AI Act timeline", "GPAI obligations", "high-risk AI", "prohibited AI practices", "AI Act and GDPR", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "AI Act standards", "AI Act national implementation", "AI literacy", "serious incident reporting", "Digital Omnibus", "AI regulatory sandbox", or any question about EU artificial intelligence regulation. Also triggers on German terms: "KI-Gesetz", "KI-Verordnung", "Hochrisiko-KI", "KI-Kompetenz", "Grundrechte-Folgenabschaetzung", "GPAI-Verhaltenskodex". For assessment workflows that produce a classification decision rather than a knowledge answer, offer to run a structured risk-tier classification in-session.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Depth assessment of whether an AI system is high-risk under Art. 6 of the EU AI Act, grounded in the Commission's draft Art. 6(5) classification guidelines (general principles + Annex I + Annex III). Covers the Annex I product-safety route, all eight Annex III areas with worked examples, the Art. 6(3) exception and its profiling re-exception, and the Art. 25 quasi-provider trap. Outputs a structured decision block, a practitioner memo, and a JSON interchange artefact.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Expert GDPR compliance assistant covering all four core workflows: (1) auditing code and systems for GDPR violations, (2) drafting GDPR-compliant documents such as privacy policies, Data Processing Agreements (DPAs), and consent notices, (3) answering GDPR compliance questions with authoritative article citations, and (4) reviewing data flows and PII handling practices. Use this skill whenever the user mentions GDPR, data protection, privacy compliance, lawful basis, data subject rights, DPA, privacy notices, consent management, data breaches, DPIAs, controller/ processor relationships, cross-border data transfers, or any EU/UK data privacy topic. Also trigger for questions like "is this GDPR compliant?", "how do I handle personal data?", "what does a privacy policy need?", or any request involving PII, personal data, or data retention in a regulatory context.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Condense a scholarly legal article by moving nonessential detail from the body into substantive footnotes while preserving every word and keeping the argument self-sufficient. Handles Markdown and Word (.docx), integrates moved material with existing notes, measures a user-specified relegation fraction (25% by default), and delivers a move-by-move memo. Use when asked to "push detail into footnotes," "relegate to footnotes," "footnote the caveats," "move the digressions down," or tighten a dense draft without deleting content. Word output requires file access plus document-conversion and rendering support; when those capabilities are unavailable, deliver Markdown and the memo or ask for a convertible source.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。